Bhawani Shanker v. Bakshish Singh

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment of the appellate court dated 16.11.2013. By the impugned judgment the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 31.3.2011. The trial court by its judgment dated 31.3.2011 dismissed the suit for possession by holding that the suit property was covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction. Appellate court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi 2014:DHC:48 (2000) 9 SCC 720 (and which judgment was with respect to the same area where the present suit property is situated) has held that the suit property did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore civil suit was maintainable. The appellate court has also noted that no doubt there can be no estoppel against law ordinarily, however, the trial court noted that the appellant/defendant was a respondent in the earlier proceedings initiated by the respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial court) under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the appellant-defendant got those proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act dismissed on this very ground that the suit property did not fall within the scope of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. The suit property in question is RZ-23-A/284, Geetanjali Park, Gali No.3, West Sagarpur, Nehru Market, New Delhi-46. The issue is whether this property is covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act by issuing of a notification extending the operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the area in question. This very aspect was the subject matter of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain (supra) and since the judgment is a short judgment I reproduce the same as under:- “1. The appellant herein is a tenant of the premises situated at Sagarpur in Delhi, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord let out the premises to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month. Subsequently, the landlord terminated the tenancy by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord thereafter brought a suit for ejectment of the tenant as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. Before the Trial Court the tenant filed a written statement wherein one of the pleas taken was that the premises which was let out to him was covered by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and as such the suit is not maintainable. The Trial Court held that the premises was not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Consequently, the suit was decreed. First Appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge, which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed a Second Appeal before the High Court and the same was also dismissed. It is in this way the appellant is before us in appeal.

2. The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that since the premises of which the appellant is a tenant is covered by Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore, the suit filed by the landlord in Civil Court was not maintainable and decree passed therein is void ab initio. In order to appreciate the argument, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as well as Delhi Rent Control Act, which are as follows: Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act:

Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act:

3. It is therefore clear that area of Sagarpur in Delhi no doubt is urbanized, but there is no notification extending operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act to Sagarpur where the suit property is situated. As already stated above, in fact appellant/defendant is guilty of blowing hot and cold and abusing the process of law because for as many as 10 years time was taken in the earlier proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act initiated by the respondent-plaintiff (and who was the petitioner in the cases filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act) and the same were got dismissed on account of the contention of the appellant/defendant that Delhi Rent Control did not extend to the property in question which is situated in Sagarpur. I may note that there is no notification whatsoever filed before this Court that the scope of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been extended to the area of Sagarpur, and the only notification which the trial court relied upon in its judgment, is for urbanization of the area in question. Urbanization of an area is different than extending the operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the area in question namely Sagarpur, Delhi and which is so also noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain (supra).

4. In view of the above discussion, there is therefore no substantial question of law for this appeal to be maintainable under Section 100 CPC.

5. There are some litigants who are bent on abusing the process of law. Appellant is one such litigant. It is time that courts sent out a strong message to litigants such as the present appellant that there is after all a limit to which judicial process can be accessed. The appeal therefore being wholly without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- and which costs will be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee.

6. List before the Registrar General for ensuring compliance of this order of deposit of costs on 6th March, 2014. In case the appellant does not deposit the costs, the Registrar General will be entitled to treat the costs as arrears of the land revenue and recover the same as arrears of land revenues for being deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee.

JANUARY 03, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib